I have had enough

Archive · #1 12-10-2007, 07:07 AM

Posted By: leon

Both Peter C and Lee B are taking a time out from the board. Personally, I like Peter C and don't really think he trys to upset the board on purpose. I think it's just him. Too many board members are having an issue with him and I have to listen.

No one but no one will make a mockery of the board (on purpose) and that is what Lee did. When part of a community you need to abide by their rules and get along. If you try to ruin a community on purpose you probably won't be able to be a part of it anymore.....best regards

Archive · #2 12-10-2007, 07:09 AM

Posted By: Matt

Leon - Isn't it great to have the weekend to just sit and relax and relieve the stress of the busy work week?

Archive · #3 12-10-2007, 07:18 AM

Posted By: leon

I guess I would ask anyone on the board what they would do in my position, with respect to this situation? Very tough call as I loathe banning people......I really hate it. As I said, I can't let anarchy rein. I hope everyone understands. Most bans aren't permanent depending on the situation. I am sorry the board had to be put through this. I would like to get back to talking about cards. regards

Archive · #4 12-10-2007, 07:25 AM

Posted By: Dave F

Leon-

Yes, tough call. I agree Peter C is just sort of a goofy guy....I don't think he is malicious in any way...Peter, take the time off to read up a bit about vintage cards and if you find you actually have an interest, then come back with a little more gusto to your posts in the future.

As far as Lee, the rantings last night seemed pretty out of character....probably a combo of too much Peter C and too many adult beverages.

For those that Peter C really annoys here...I would say look at it like a child in a sense. My 2 year old asks dumb questions...she's 2...comes with the territory..I don't get mad at her about it. I think its best if folks look at Peter C the same way...not a jerk, just can't help himself from looking the way he does, at least in this field.

Dave

Archive · #5 12-10-2007, 07:34 AM

Posted By: john/z28jd

I don't agree about his intent Dave. His questions are for the most part stupid but when he defends himself he actually makes a lot more sense so you know he can be smarter when he wants. He doesn't listen to anyone's advice yet keeps asking questions that have no thought behind him. I really think he is just here to get people mad and it worked. You can see in his writing that when he wants to say something he knows how to. That's why I believe he needs the time off and when he comes back he should be on a very short leash.Make him prove that he learned from his mistakes and hes not here just to make a mockery of the board.

As far as Lee goes,I think he took one for the team and I personally sent him an email thanking him for that.

Archive · #6 12-10-2007, 07:37 AM

Posted By: Al C.risafulli

"I guess I would ask anyone on the board what they would do in my position, with respect to this situation?"

I can totally identify with not wanting to ban people from a message board. It's no fun.

That said, in this situation I would ban Peter C, and invite Lee to come back. Lee has been an excellent contributor here and has many friends on the board. I suspect he was trying to make a point with his many posts this morning, as I mentioned in another post in one of Lee's threads.

Peter, on the other hand, adds nothing, and most of his threads become trainwrecks. You've asked him multiple times, in public and I'm sure in private, to knock it off. Even his inane questions are usually off-topic, and when they're not, it's usually an accident. After a while, it becomes the responsibility of the poster to learn the culture of a message board, and if they can't, they need to go - as much as it may pain the moderator.

-Al

Archive · #7 12-10-2007, 07:44 AM

Posted By: barrysloate

Whatever Peter's motives for posting the way he does, I think it is time for him to stop. As I said previously, it has become too much of a distraction. It's reached the point where few take him seriously, and too many pile on and mock him. Overall, it's really bad for the board.

Edited to add I misread a line in Leon's post. Peter is banned. Probably the right decision.

Archive · #8 12-10-2007, 07:52 AM

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

Leon, I support your decision because I have real empathy for you on this. And I agree that Lee took one for the team and deserves praise. Until Peter realizes the idiot that he is, I suspect he will not attempt to control himself.

Archive · #9 12-10-2007, 07:55 AM

Posted By: Al Simeone

Leon,
I had just finished writing a VERY long post for one of Lees postings but as I tried to put it in you had already locked it. To bad it was just about what you had stated. The board was starting to become a nightmare with Peter C at the controls!!! Leon Im glad you took the stance with Peter C.He started to use YOUR good nature as a person even after your warnings to try and control himself. Dave I also dont think what you said is correct. Think about it The man is an educated person,a lawyer. Hes not a 2 year old. Should have enough brains to figure out that its time to stop! Lee my friend I also agree you took one for the team and Leon I think Lee should be allowed back much earlier because if Peter C. hadnt created this problem I dont think Lee would have "transformed" himself into LEE CHAO!!!!!!!!! HE@@ you might just as well ban me also because as we talked about my blood pressure was climbing with every Peter C. Post. I would have considered doing the same thing but Lee beat us to it!!! (Good job Lee) Its hard to be the moderator when issues like this pop up but in this case you did the right thing! But just one suggestion LEE CHAOS sentence should be commuted due to a GREAT public service!!!!!!!!!

Archive · #10 12-10-2007, 08:08 AM

Posted By: Rich Klein

So I don't want Peter C to think I'm piling on. But somewhere between his thought processes and what he writes down on a board; something goes haywire.

He reminds me so much of a young man named Nick who hosted for a while in the same AOL chat room where I host a once a month trivia game. Nick was very bright; although you would never recognize it from his typos or terrible grammar in writing questions. However, his questions were amongst the best questions asked by any hosts but at least 20 percent of them got ruined by either his typos or his egregious (sic, correct me Barry if I'm wrong) grammar mistakes.

Eventually; some of the other players made too much fun of his typos (dicebets = diabetes) and he has left the room and has not returned. Personally, I think he meant well but the english problems became too much. Peter reminds me so much of him; in that he means well BUT does not understand that although his questions or thoughts are many times very intelligent; that does not translate well to paper (or a chat board such as this).

Peter; I made the same offer to Nick that I'll make to you. Let me edit your posts in the future BEFORE you start a thread. My email is well known and I may just say, Peter don't even go there in starting a thread.

Leon, I feel sorry for you in all this -- for this may be the first time you have ever asked a poster to take time out for over enthusiasm. Peter, whatever time Leon asked to take off; I suggest you double it. If Leon said take a week off; take 2; if he said take 3 months off; take 6. Build up your questions and comments and learn from what other people say or do.

BTW -- to one of the posters who said buying cards was a requirement for this board -- I have probably bought no more than 10 vintage cards in the past 10 years but because of what I've done in the hobby -- and what I remember collecting 20-30 years ago and my knowledge of the people in the hobby -- I certainly feel that buying cards recently is NOT a requirement for posting to this board as long as you can bring something else to the table,

Regards
Rich

Edited thanks to Barry's english professor feedback

Archive · #11 12-10-2007, 08:15 AM

Posted By: barrysloate

Egregious

Archive · #12 12-10-2007, 08:17 AM

Posted By: Joann

I just posted a long diatribe in the other thread before I saw this one, and that something has apparently been done.

Leon - I understand that you don't want to ban posters except in extreme circumstances. I believe in that wholeheartedly because I do think it's a powerful tool that, in less responsible hands, could be used to destroy or diminish the wide variety of thoughts and ideas we have. So I really do support your reluctance to ban.

I believe Peter's detrimental effect on the board and our relationships with one another had become extreme, but because it was a little here and a little there it went on for a long time and maybe didn't jump out as the destructive mechanism that it was.

Because of that, I think that what Lee did was necessary to bring this issue to the conclusion it needed. Something had to happen to get the situation with Peter to "event status" instead of letting it continue to eat away at the health and welfare of the board.

Clearly there were others of us that felt the same way, and would have maybe done something similar at some point. As I said in the other thread, I kind of said to hell with it and backed off the board because of Peter (and the extent to which I thought my level of frustration indicated that my priorities were not in order). Lee chose to take the battle to the mountain, so to speak, and fight it out to conclusion one way or another.

Lee has been on here forever, and has been a thoughtful and valuable contributor. I think he should get a hall pass for this one. Yes, he did something disruptive to the board. But he did it to make a point about disruptions, and the comments in the aftermath suggest his actions have the support of a lot of people.

.02

J

Archive · #13 12-10-2007, 08:29 AM

Posted By: dennis

what lee did was for the good of this board. he has been posting great stuff here for years and deserves to be let back on asap. yes what he did was a mockery and was on purpose.but leon, peter c was dividing the board (as joanne so astutely pointed out)and peters intentions were not naive,he knew exactly what he was doing. it was all about peter c. leon you saw it as him being a nice guy? a nice guy would not do to this board (or to you)what he did.

Archive · #14 12-10-2007, 08:34 AM

Posted By: leon

Is it just me that noticed that at least half of Lee B's threads, lately, have been about how bad this board is and how none of the good posters post anymore? Am I making this up in my mind? As I said above, most bans aren't permanent. Regardless, NO ONE, is going to make a mockery of the board and not have any consequences. If anyone else would let someone take over the board then that is their prerogative. Happy holidays....

Archive · #15 12-10-2007, 08:34 AM

Posted By: G. Maines

Both Peter C and Lee B are taking a time out from the board. Personally, I like Lee B. and don't really think he trys to upset the board on purpose.

No one but no one will make a mockery of the board (on purpose) and that is what PETER C. did. When part of a community you need to abide by their rules and get along. If you try to ruin a community on purpose you probably won't be able to be a part of it anymore.....best regards

Archive · #16 12-10-2007, 08:39 AM

Posted By: Dan Paradis

Great call Leon!!

If it is to much for the children on this board to ignore a post (you know move to the next line), then I'd tell them to try another forum.

For the most part I think Peter C's posts are interesting. The ones that I don't find interesting I somehow manage to skip reading it and you know, move down to the next line on the list. It's difficult, but somehow I manage to do it without getting to upset.

I still would love to find out the ages of everyone who posts on this forum. I just can't believe that adults would act this way. Maybe a new post for Peter C???

Again, nice job Leon.

Dan (age 49)

Archive · #17 12-10-2007, 08:50 AM

Posted By: Joe D.

but by his own admission he is fighting the establishment.

He has been asked many times to post about cards.
Yet just about every thread I have seen him start is about a fringe / borderline topic... and not about actual cards, or a vintage set. Wouldn't it be nice to start a thread about a card or set? And not so much about how you assort your different slabs, or internet service business models within a card store, etc.

Those threads keep coming and the whole situation starts over and over again. The insults to Peter... the defenders of Peter... the bumps to the top by Peter.

Although not malicious... I am convinced Peter does this on purpose. For attention. His consistent fringe topics along with he himself bumping threads to the top after they have gone stale are what make me feel this way.

The situation is annoying... and the initiator who is fighting the establishment is doing it on purpose IMO. He is not malicious and I am sure he is a good guy... but this is his attention getter. Again - just my opinion - I could be wrong - but thats how I see it.

Leon - As far as what Lee has talked about lately.... If you have noticed a consistent talk of 'not good posters or posts' I think that is just frustration coming to the surface and it is not all that far from accurate (and that frustration might by shared by others who do not express as much).

As far as what Lee did with all of those topics... I think that is once again frustration coming to the surface.

In short Leon -
If you asked me who is making the mockery of the board... Peter C or Lee? -
I would have to answer Peter C is the one making the mockery of the board.

I do not believe in banning either -
but the watchful eye belongs on Peter, not Lee.

Archive · #18 12-10-2007, 08:55 AM

Posted By: Joe D.

"If it is to much for the children on this board to ignore a post (you know move to the next line), then I'd tell them to try another forum."

Nice of you to start with the name calling.
That is very adult of you.

I do not consider myself a child (36 years old) -
and when a thread gets past 50 replies....
I feel compelled to see what my community is talking about.

The situation is annoying and distracting.

And if Leon's solution, as you suggest, was ever to tell me 'to try another forum' -
I would.

Archive · #19 12-10-2007, 08:59 AM

Posted By: Frank Evanov

I know this was a difficult decision for you and I support it, but the root of this problem is Peter C.

Lee's responses were just that....responses to a poster who was taking away the focus of this board. Lee should not be banned.

Frank

Archive · #20 12-10-2007, 09:07 AM

Posted By: Seth B.

I think everyone has spoken on these issues better than I could, so I've edited out my post. Back to cards, people!

[Edited for clarity and for content]

Archive · #21 12-10-2007, 09:22 AM

Posted By: Chris Mc

I for one think there are a few people who like confrontation. Let them duke it out but for God's sake do not feed them by a reply or retort. The forum is a great reference source and fantastic way to learn about vintage cards. The rest of the BS if simply ignored will go away and if it does not Leon can as forum owner do what's best for the board.
Imo there are way to many that are quick to jump to conclusions about a simple opinion. It seems people are way to defensive and feel they have to defend themselves instead of reading between the lines. Direct contact through e-mail is a better solution then airing it out on the board.
Happy Holiday's

Archive · #22 12-10-2007, 09:44 AM

Posted By: B.C.Daniels

Lee!

BcD

Archive · #23 12-10-2007, 09:52 AM

Posted By: pas

Lee is a good man, I think he just had had enough and lost it. I would let him back immediately.

Archive · #24 12-10-2007, 09:53 AM

Posted By: Joann

Leon,

I rethought it a bit since your last post, and I guess you are right about Lee.

First, though, I'll say that although he has posted more recently about direction and focus of the board, I took that as all relating to the Peter C situation. I don't remember exactly and probably couldn't find all of his posts again, but as I read them I took them as being generic in tone but definitely with Peter at the core of the thinking - the poster child of the concern.

But as to a time-out, I guess I do have to agree with that. (Sorry Lee - but I'll explain here.)

I agree with what Lee did, and I think a lot of other people did too. But what if the next person that does it doesn't have as much support? What if it isn't a long-time contributor? What if someone crashes the board in protest over an issue and I don't agree with it? How would I look at it then?

I guess that doing something like that requires action whether I agree with it or not. In that sense, whoever it was upthread that characterized this as Lee taking one for the team hit it dead on. He did take one, because there is something to take. And it was for the team because it's obvious that a lot of us agree with him and are grateful. But Leon is right in saying that you can't just let it go either.

So Leon - put on your Solomon hat! lol. I understand that you have to do something here. But it should include consideration of Lee's status here, his long history of contribution and not causing problems, the fact that so many people here support what he did, etc.

In other words, maybe some time off is called for, but having it be short and symbolic might not be a bad way to go.

And Dan P, I'm 48 years old and generally consider myself a reasonable adult. Peter's posts were out of line in that they did not fit in with the culture of this board as defined by its participants. Telling people to skip these posts is oversimplistic and ineffective. It is the rationale by which this board would have no focus at all and anyone could post anything. How that could possibly work is beyond me.

In Peter's case, he seemed to dance on the line between what is on-topic and rational versus what is peripheral, superficial, and cluttering to board focus. I think that's why it was so hard to deal with and why he caused so much dissent - because he was on the line and wasn't clearly either on or off topic.

But the board itself, overwhelmingly it seems, came down on the side of deciding his posts fell on the wrong side of an indistinct line. That is no more "wrong" than the board as a group deciding that my posts complaining about my job or talking about my holiday plans are out of line. Groups self-govern - that's how it is.

Reasonable people finally saying that enough is enough does not make them children, childish or immature.

Joann

Archive · #25 12-10-2007, 09:59 AM

Posted By: Chris Bland

Peter C. adds nothing to the board except to take attention away from its true purpose, which is to discuss vintage cards and issues related to them. I used to feel bad for Peter, as I thought people were being harsh to someone who just didnt know better, but it became clear to me that he was nothing more than an attention-seeker after his behavior went unchanged month after month.

Personally I would welcome Lee back. Peter? If his subject matter doesnt change, I would be fine if he never posts here again.

Archive · #26 12-10-2007, 10:00 AM

Posted By: Dan Bretta

Lee should be allowed back ASAP. Obviously his barrage of Peterlike posts was out of frustration as I also think his posts about board direction over the last few months were also related to his frustration with Peter cluttering the board with inane topics. Besides with Peter gone there is little for him to complain about. His posts are always informative and helpful and it would only benefit the board to have him back.

edited to add: I was also at one time a supporter of Choa until it got to the point where it looked like he was enjoying the attention and kept bumping up dead threads to keep the inanity rolling. I'm not sure he should be allowed back at all. I have been here through Adam M, Sean and now Peter and I don't think either of the former two come close to the board disruption that Peter had become.

Archive · #27 12-10-2007, 10:02 AM

Posted By: leon

Fair enough concerning Lee. I have my personal feelings but try not to let them come into these decisions. If I did the board would have several fewer posters. It's not about my personal feelings it's about what is best for the board.

If you are a suicide martyr and have a strong belief in what you are doing is the right thing to do, you might be justified, but you are still dead. In this case I would say Lee is maimed. Peter C is too. Peter C gives me less grief on the board but Peter C causes more.....so that in itself is a conundrum....regards

Archive · #28 12-10-2007, 10:12 AM

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

Ahh...Adam J. Moraine! Blast from the past.

Can anyone really suggest that Chao wasn't worse than Moraine and Sean combined?

Archive · #29 12-10-2007, 10:13 AM

Posted By: MVSNYC

wow, sounds like you all had a busy night...i was out until about 6am partying, so i missed a lot...

Leon- good call (re: Peter C)...he added NOTHING to the board, and constantly started ridiculous posts after being warned repeatidly by you to chill...

besides this becoming a distraction to "us" (regular posters), we have to remember this is a public forum, so we also have hobby heavyweights watching & posting here (rob lifson, doug allen, josh leland evans, dave forman, etc...) and this whole situation was getting embarassing.

so now, let's get back to vintage card talk...

best-
Michael Sarno

p.s. i forgot to add Jay Wolt to that short list (hi Jay!)

Archive · #30 12-10-2007, 10:56 AM

Posted By: Brian McQueen

A couple quick points here....

One, on Peter's "time-out". We really don't ask a lot out of the members of our community. We have a very short list of rules we expect people to follow. Peter did not follow these rules. We asked him politely to change, took the time to explain to him why he needed to change and finally warned him that he needed to change. Well, his behavior never changed. It simply got to the point where we needed to take the next step and so we have. You can only give a person so many warnings you know?

Two...you'll notice I used the word "time-out" above. That's what this is. We don't like to ban people and we realize that members of our community don't like to see their fellow posters booted. We have not banned Peter permanently. He will be welcomed back eventually but for now, we want him to think about all that has happened here so when he returns, he will be a better contributor and a more valuable member of our community. Some people don't realize this, but we do stay in touch with those that have left our forum. Occasionally we let them back on as well so Peter probably will have the same opportunity.

Archive · #31 12-10-2007, 11:11 AM

Posted By: pas

There is always CU.

Archive · #32 12-10-2007, 11:15 AM

Posted By: Bottom of the Ninth

I don't think that Peter C will use the time constructively. His motivation for being here is merely for attention. He may own a few cards but does not truly have a desire to learn about the hobby on any level. His willingness to tolerate being slammed repeatedly is not one of strength and endurance but one of neediness. I am sure when he is not posting here he is mixing it up on other chat boards unrelated to the hobby. Chat boards like this represent a form of social life to him. Just a guess but me thinks Peter C does not get out too much. And how could he if these are the social skills he possess.

Greg

Archive · #33 12-10-2007, 11:27 AM

Posted By: Randy Trierweiler

Leon, you know you will never please everybody on this board, but I think you made the right call here. People have to accept responsibility for their actions. Actions have consequences.

Lee may have "taken one for the team", but what he did was still wrong. Maybe he does deserve a short suspension, a few days maybe.

Peter on the other hand has been warned, talked to, counseled, warned again, given advice that he himself asked for, all to no avail. My personal opinion is that if he returns in a short time, say a week or two, it will take 10 minutes to return to "chaos".

I think the board needs some serious "cool down" time in regards to Peter. He could do some serious reflecting during this time. I think 60-90 days or so of reflection may help him.

Anyway, thats just one guys opinion.

Randy

Archive · #34 12-10-2007, 12:05 PM

Posted By: Dan Koteles

I think that peter should have to stay on topic to remain. WHile I do not think he means harm, to a point , enough is enough. It is almost like ...lets see what I can drum up today !Peter ,Peter , Peter.....really you should go check yourself into the attention deficiency programs in your local town. I have backed your innocence, but even the last post is contradictory to the board as you talk about graded cards , but not really pre -war . So who gives a flying truck about what you have in 50 & 60's and your unopened 70- 80 packs that are stinkin irrelevant.

This is confusing to what new members can do and finally insulting to those that have been around pre -war for awhile. FOr the most part, some here have not been grown up about your posts, because they could simply ignore it , knowing that most of its content is about b.s anyway. SO why would an adult be so irritatd when there are mush more important things in life .But you truly are testing PRE WAR waters and need to learn much more here then being constantly silly .Really ,I dont think you lack attention but would like to know your aim .You are crying wolf too many times....a day will come when no one will respond.

Edited for missing the "y" in crying

Archive · #35 12-10-2007, 12:13 PM

Posted By: John

I suspect that if fewer people (most of whom are adults, at least age wise) fueled the fire(s), there would be fewer (no?) issues. sure, you may not be able to resist the temptation of opening a thread (even if it's OT), but is it really necessary- and does it fuel the board's goals- to engage in 'yo mama' like attacks?

2 wrongs don’t make a right and I don’t think someone’s seniority on the board (what about lurkers who never registered for years but have read the board?), # of posts, content of posts, or # of friends on the board should earn them any special treatment. What I think mods may want to do is implement a system- e.g., 1st personal attack= 1 day time out, 2nd personal attack= 5-7 days; 3rd personal attack= ban. There have been far too many posts lately where it seems like the masses are ‘ganging up’ on individual posters. Is it really necessary, mature, or conducive to call someone an ‘idiot?’ do we really want posters here who spend the bulk of their time complaining about the board?

Archive · #36 12-10-2007, 12:47 PM

Posted By: DMcD

Adam Moraine was a not very bright fellow who got called on his BS, got disruptive and was banned. The disruption Peter caused was much more insidious and went on a lot longer. Now he and his Teflon ego are in the N54 Phantom Zone, too. I wish you guys would lay off young Sean though. True, he came on at first like the poster boy both for Ritalin and the failure of the education system, and he was heartily crapped upon by everybody. (I was one of the first to ridicule him. I later apologized). He was eleven years old, for chrissakes! He shouldn't have been permitted to post here in the first place but that's 20-20 hindsight. If I am not mistaken he was phantomzoned for a year. When he came back last summer his posts were more on target, way less frantic and his English composition skills were way mo' bettah. The lad had grown up more in a year than any of the rest of us and deserves not to be lumped in the N54 Hall of Shame with the likes of Moraine and Chao. Can we cut the young man some slack?

FREE LEE

Archive · #37 12-10-2007, 12:56 PM

Posted By: quan

has dan mathewson or dr. koos been reinstated?

i'm making "free lee" t-shirts for the next national.

Archive · #38 12-10-2007, 12:57 PM

Posted By: Dan Bretta

I didn't mean to compare Sean with Peter and Moraine. I was just stating that I'd been here through all of the disruptions that led to someone's banishment. Until we found out that he truly was just a young lad though his posts ALL reeked of trolling by asking the same question over and over in 10 different threads. I can't even remember what eventually led to Moraine getting the boot, but I'm sure if I can't remember it wasn't nearly as bad as Peter's sideshow.

Archive · #39 12-10-2007, 01:21 PM

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

Sean was a young kid who was incredibly enthusiastic about cards but simply acted like an 11 year old. Chao is a 50-something year old guy who has acted much worse.

I never criticized Sean once because I believe that children should be cut some major slack, especially kids that are interested in our esoteric hobby. Chao, on the other hand, is an idiot who received way more slack than Sean ever did. Why on earth would we expect more from a child than from some 50-something year old who first made a splash on this board praising the Virginia Tech gunman as "more noble" than the leaders of our country? Sorry, but whine all you want: Chao is an idiot who deserves what he got; Sean, on the other hand, deserves an apology.

Archive · #40 12-10-2007, 01:26 PM

Posted By: peter ullman

Personally I like Lee...have been to a twins game with him(he has great seats by the way). I think Peter C.'s intentions are harmless...although I agree his retorts always seem more thought out than his original posts...and he is a bit juvenile in his knowledge of vintage compared to others. But if you don't like him...ignore his posts!

Personally...I thought Lee's threads are hilarious...and without interludes like this...life is boring. Nonetheless the board is Leons...and a spot in the corner for a spell isn't so bad.

peter ullman

Archive · #41 12-10-2007, 01:37 PM

Posted By: Dan Koteles

can't imagine it would be that hard. AFter Santana goes.....pretty sure you will sit where you want to.

Good luck Tigers !!!

Archive · #42 12-10-2007, 01:53 PM

Posted By: Double-P-Enterprises

Thank you from those of us who really do have tremendous knowledge of the hobby but simply wish to view and learn something on this board from time-to-time. Peter C. is an absolute waste of time and space and he contributed zero to this forum. He is certainly no hobby enthusiast and his interest is only self-gratification. For the sanctity of us all and the future of this forum, please ensure he is banned for good. Should he reappear under another ID, let's hope the administrator acts as quickly as one Mr. Roger Goodell would in order to protect his forum.

The other gentleman, from what I have seen, is in fact a hobby enthusiast and someone who can offer knowledge and true insight into our hobby and investments. Bottom line, he was a catalyst in getting the administrator to do what should have been done long ago. A bit much, yes. I'm certain he won't gloat upon reinstatement and that reinstatement should happen without delay.